A document that has surfaced out of the Far East claims that Apple's third-generation iPad will cost $80 more, starting at $579 instead of $499.

Evidence of a potential price hike for Apple's so-called "iPad 3" came on Monday from a newly publicized price comparison sheet that surfaced from China. The post was originally discovered on the Chinese microblogging site Sina Weibo by MacRumors.

The comparison chart shows a 16-gigabyte Wi-Fi-only iPad priced at $579, with the 32-gigabyte model for $679 and 64-gigabyte for $779. 3G-capable models are also shown with a price hike, though slightly less at $70 for each model.

If the rumored prices prove accurate, the increases could be as a result of higher costs associated with the Retina Display Apple's next iPad is expected to feature. Reports have pointed toward the new iPad screen having a resolution of 2,047 by 1,536 pixels, which would be twice that of the current 1,024-by-768-pixel screen on the iPad 2.

Other changes to the iPad are expected to be largely internal, with evidence of a faster processor and potential 4G LTE connectivity having surfaced in recent weeks. On the outside, the next iPad is expected to look largely the same, with an external case featuring edges slightly more tapered than the iPad 2.

A price increase for the next iPad would be a rare move for Apple, which has generally maintained price points for its iOS products with each annual upgrade. One of the biggest surprises with the first iPad when it was announced in 2010 was its $499 starting price, which some analysts expected would cost over $1,000.

There have also been suggestions that Apple could continue to offer the current iPad 2 at a lower price, much like the company currently does with previous-generation iPhone models. Some have seen a hypothetical $399 iPad 2 as a way Apple could take away sales from Amazon's $199 Kindle Fire.

$80 bucks more or less makes zero difference to me and it doesn't matter to the majority of Apple users either. If the extra tech included in the iPad 3 warrants the increase in price, then so be it. Those who want an iPad 3 will get one, and those that don't, well they won't.

Apple does not need to attract any customers with rock bottom prices. That has never been Apple's philosophy and they certainly don't need to turn into one of those Android companies whose main selling point is cheap ass prices. Welfare recipients do not drive the tech industry, people who appreciate quality and Apple customers do.

Maybe a little but I think the biggest hit is from the HW they have to use. Just like the iPhone 4 display no one had anything remotely close, the difference is that the components to push the pixels in the iPhone 4 already existed in the iPad and then some. WIth this new resolution on a mobile device a lot of tech is leading edge. I think it's safe to say that the 43.9 billion Apple invested was likely for display tech.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Seems to me the iPad 3 has to be the same price or lower than the previous model. And, the 1 year old model should be $70 or so cheaper than the new model (and $100 cheaper would really boost sales more than $70 off).

It would be a mistake to raise prices, in the light of the Samsung competition (which is starting to attract my attention).

Millions of people are using the iPad 2 right now and are perfectly happy with it. For those who want the latest and greatest or who need the extra resolution, there's the new model. Both versions would sell in the millions and be a good choice for particular customers.

And I bet that the people who will whine the most about Apple's prices are many of the same hypocritical people who whined about the working conditions. These people should now be glad and they should be happy to pay more for their new iPad, otherwise they should just STFU.

Seems to me the iPad 3 has to be the same price or lower than the previous model. And, the 1 year old model should be $70 or so cheaper than the new model (and $100 cheaper would really boost sales more than $70 off).

It would be a mistake to raise prices, in the light of the Samsung competition (which is starting to attract my attention).

What bizarre logic would lead one to believe that Apple should LOWER prices on the iPad?

If you look at the published results, Samsung is only a tiny player - and no evidence that they're growing. Apple is the clear #1 - by far. Amazon is #2 - again with a wide lead. But Apple isn't really competing with the Kindle, so that's not really an issue. None of the full tablet computers have even a tiny fraction of Apple's share.

If Apple really does come out with a high resolution iPad, it will be so far ahead of the competition that there's no reason to think that they'd have to lower the price. And a price increase wouldn't be out of the question.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

A document that has surfaced out of the Far East claims that Apple's third-generation iPad will cost $80 more, starting at $579 instead of $499.

I'd be more surprised if they didn't have a price hike.

I wonder if they'll have the HD iPad models with an A6 and the regular model with the A5X, but at this price point it's unlikely. Just wonder which processor they'll use for the basic iPad 3, if they differentiate a basic model or just keep the iPad 2 at a discount.

Seems to me the iPad 3 has to be the same price or lower than the previous model. And, the 1 year old model should be $70 or so cheaper than the new model (and $100 cheaper would really boost sales more than $70 off).

It would be a mistake to raise prices, in the light of the Samsung competition (which is starting to attract my attention).

Typically you shouldn't raise prices but if the other option is to not release the HiDPI display until 2013 or 2014 then that becomes an issue. They could fold in double the NAND flash but then you're talking about likely raising it up an even $100 per unit and losing the up sale. All that's without considering that people tend to think that capacity should double every year for free.

Consider why the iPad 3 would be more costly and then wonder if that extra value is worth an 8 to 16% price increase? Now consider the popularity of the device and how Apple has been selling them so quickly that perhaps they entered the market at too low a cost that even those that would be turned off by an 8 to 16% price increase for the extra components would still result in Apple selling the same number of units either way. Now consider Samsung et al. trying to compete against the iPad's 2048x1536 display with a 1280x800 display.

The only other option I can see is only having the HiDPI display in the high-end iPads to hid the cost but that causes its own issues and if you have the ability to make enough of the new displays you might as well capitalize on it, especially if you've invested billions in getting them made.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

I think the screen on my iPad 2 looks amazing. I'll be skipping the iPad 3.

I agree that the iPad 2 screen looks great, I'm perfectly happy with mine too. But I wonder how much more amazing the iPad 3 screen looks. Four times the amount of pixels seems insane. I guess we'll find out how great the iPad 3 screen looks soon enough.

Just trying to rectify the various rumors about the A5X chip and the A6 quad core chip.

Those rumors, if there is any vein of truth to them, could be A5x for a revamped Apple TV and A6 for the iPad.

As for the pricing, my guess is that the amounts are on there because to get any kind of insurance on a shipment you have to declare a value on the items inside. And that value is typically tied to the area the products are shipping in. As in China. As in, Apple has to pay taxes etc that would raise the price over what the US price would be. The value of the iPad 2 may be lower because they have scaled it to the new retail price once the iPad 3 releases and what we are seeing is the new pricing plus the taxes for China. But in the US it will be the same $499 scale for the iPad 3 and something lower for the iPad 2 which will be in clearance (other than perhaps a single iPad 2 wifi model in a move similar to the iPhone 3gs and iPhone 4 system).

I think the screen on my iPad 2 looks amazing. I'll be skipping the iPad 3.

The original iPhone screen looked great, too, and it had a substantially higher PPI than the current iPad, but we all saw how much better the display got with the iPhone 4. Of course, part of that was moving to IPS over TN.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

I am guessing you are being sarcastic? But if the price of the iP3 is going up by $80.- (which at this point is a rumour), it might lend credence to the suggestion that the ip2 will stay around at a lower price.

Will you guys EVER learn math?
A retina display that has double the dpi has FOUR TIMES THE RESOLUTION, not double the resolution, because resolution goes by the square. e.g. You have a 1 by 1 square pixel and now that will become a 2 by 2 square if you double the dpi; but a 2 by 2 contains 4 pixels while a 1 by 1 contains 1 pixel; as you see the resolution, i.e. pixel count is quadrupled not doubled.
As you can see, this can be solved without the use of advanced math; yet AI gets this CONSISTENTLY WRONG. Would the editors please take note?

$500 is a psychological barrier for many. I would be surprised if Apple crossed that threshold by adding $80.

I agree. $499 still seems like "toy money" and very doable, but when the price is over $600 with tax......that's too much. I've been waiting for the retina display, but I'll be passing if it comes out at $580.

I am guessing you are being sarcastic? But if the price of the iP3 is going up by $80.- (which at this point is a rumour), it might lend credence to the suggestion that the ip2 will stay around at a lower price.

Nope, I'm genuinely worried. Apple needs to keep "This Year's Model" at the same price regardless of keeping around an old model.

Will you guys EVER learn math?
A retina display that has double the dpi has FOUR TIMES THE RESOLUTION, not double the resolution, because resolution goes by the square. e.g. You have a 1 by 1 square pixel and now that will become a 2 by 2 square if you double the dpi; but a 2 by 2 contains 4 pixels while a 1 by 1 contains 1 pixel; as you see the resolution, i.e. pixel count is quadrupled not doubled.
As you can see, this can be solved without the use of advanced math; yet AI gets this CONSISTENTLY WRONG. Would the editors please take note?

We've discussed this before. You are wrong. Resolution is not synonymous with pixel count. Resolution is the measure of two dimensions. You can get a pixel value from the resolution but you can't get a resolution from the number of pixels. Therefore resolution is 2x, PPI is 2x (because it only refers to one dimension), but pixel count is 4x.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Well, a super hi-res retina display also represents a technological barrier that has never before been broken. So, if a $500 psychological barrier is more important to you than a never before seen technological barrier, then the iPad 3 is definitely not for you.